Great, agreement. :) For the record, however, I think that there is a much longer way to go before a) the semantics can actually be used to reason about space behavior and b) the editors would accept such a semantics as binding on implementations of Scheme.
Thanks again for pointing out the bug in the semantics, btw. Robby On 3/16/07, AndrevanTonder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007, Robby Findler wrote: > Okay, sure. You've said that several times now. I agree (for the > second time): the semantics cannot be used to reason about space > behavior! > > You also stated that the semantics gets sharing wrong. If all you mean > is the below, then I understand what you mean there is nothing more to > say, as far as I'm concerned. > > But, just in an attempt to be clear to you, I'm claiming that there is > no observable way in which sharing is wrong. Except for the incomplete implementation of EQV? on procedures, which you have said is not technically wrong, but presumably can be observed not to give the correct answer ;-) But okay, I'll drop the space behaviour issue for now, given that it is apparently and unfortunately not a design goal of the editors, after one final remark: You could easily get a semantics with the space and sharing behaviour that is implied by the discussion on procedure location tags and eqv? by a very small modification whereby user procedure parameters are put in the store (as pairs currently are) rather than substituted directly. Scalar values and primitives could still be substituted directly, so the readability of many simple reduction sequences would not be affected. Given that this seems to be a trivial modification, I think an implementation in which this behaviour is provided as an option would be an easy thing to make available. It would be valuable to those of us who are interested in reasoning about space. Andre
_______________________________________________ r6rs-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.r6rs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/r6rs-discuss
